Google: we're not to blame for newspapers' plight
By Reuters
Posted on 4 Dec 2009 at 09:20
Google has spoken out against accusations that it's harming the newspaper business, claiming publishers do better out of Google News that it does.
"With dwindling revenue and diminished resources, frustrated newspaper executives are looking for someone to blame," Google chief executive Eric Schmidt wrote in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.
"Much of their anger is currently directed at Google, whom many executives view as getting all the benefit from the business relationship without giving much in return," he said. "The facts, I believe, suggest otherwise."
Revenue from ads that appear alongside news articles on Google's search engine represent a "tiny fraction" of the company's overall revenue, Schmidt said.
With dwindling revenue and diminished resources, frustrated newspaper executives are looking for someone to blame
Developing new technology that makes it easier to reach readers and keeps readers engaged longer will be important for publishers, he said.
"We also acknowledge that it has been difficult for newspapers to make money from their online content," Schimdt wrote. "But just as there is no single cause of the industry's current problems, there is no single solution."
Schmidt envisioned a future in 2015 when consumers can flip through the pages of digital newspapers as quickly and effortlessly as with today's broadsheets. He predicted that consumers would receive some articles through paid subscriptions, while free previews of other articles might entice a consumer to pay "a few pennies" for access.
Advertisements, specially targeted to individual readers, would subsidise other freely available articles, he forecast.
Schmidt's comments come as news publishers adopt an increasingly antagonistic tone toward Google and other search engines. Last month, News Corp chief Rupert Murdoch threatened to block Google's search engine from accessing his newspapers' content.
Google subsequently announced a change to its technology that would allow publishers that charge subscription fees for online editions, such as News Corp's Wall Street Journal, to limit the number of times web surfers can access free versions of articles through Google searches.
In the past, Schmidt has suggested that publishers of general news would find it difficult to charge for their content on the web.
In a video conference with British broadcast executives in September, he said providers of niche content, like business news, might be able to charge for content. But the glut of general news freely available would make it challenging for mainstream publishers to justify putting paywalls around their content, he said.
From around the web
Pay For News?
It must be worth the cost for most people to be prepared to pay for something. While news is interesting it is doubtful if anyone would pay for news simply 'out of interest'. We all know that the murdocks (murdog)would like to charge everyone for the air we use and the clothes on our backs, but so far this is not possible. So let them build their little hives, the world will not suffer for not being able to access his narrow slanted news take.
The quest to monetise things must take account of people's desire for the object, their ability to pay and the value proposition that is offered. It is not enough for someone to simply say, "I want that cash for me".
Richard
By Jonesr18 on 4 Dec 2009 ![]()
and if all the sites you now use ... start charging for their news sections? (no matter where you go or who you go to that is)
Everyone will end up paying somewhere whether they like it or not, some amount small or not.
By nicomo on 4 Dec 2009 ![]()
Do'nt Pay For News
Do you expect the closure of Radio, TV, and associated web sites? If all that closed down, then the garden might look better and I would not need a TV license any more. The Murdocks would still NOT get my money
By Jonesr18 on 4 Dec 2009 ![]()
The problem I see for any general online news site is the BBC, as long as they continue to produce content I can't see many people being prepared to pay for news online (and yes I guess it's true we pay via the license fee) - unless they offer substantially more or specific industry focus (or boobs in the case of The Sun) you cannot get elsewhere
I personally can't stand any of the Murdoch rags, you couldn't pay me to read them.
By Deano on 4 Dec 2009 ![]()
ads
the reason I don't have sky or wouldn't take up paid for news service is that you still get ads. I pay for the beeb and get no ads why should it not be the same for sky etc.
By SimonCorlett on 4 Dec 2009 ![]()
ads
Simon, that one is easy, the sky tribe want your money anyway they can get it, so my mantra is "just say no to murdock".
The thought of paying them a subscription and then sitting through hours of ads for things that I would never want would drive me mad.
By Jonesr18 on 4 Dec 2009 ![]()
advertisement
- Laptop bag reviews: nine tested
- Sony VAIO T Series Ultrabook review: first look
- Revealed: the military standards and robots HP uses to test its laptops
- Windows 8: multi-monitors and double standards?
- Why is TalkTalk's year-old porn filter suddenly big news?
- Why are laptop screens so far behind mobiles?
- HP EliteBook Folio review: first look
- The shoebox-sized all-in-one printer
- Forget the Ultrabook: here comes the HP Sleekbook
- HP Spectre XT review: first look
- Why you have to be left in the dark on OS patches
- Is Microsoft mismanaging Windows on ARM?
- Dealing with spam surrogates
- Why 3G broadband can be better and cheaper than ADSL
- Is Twitter bad for business?
- Publishing your email address isn't a security disaster
- Why you'll need a fax machine to develop iOS apps
- Learning to adapt to the mobile web
- Why you shouldn't use WPS on your Wi-Fi network
- Disabled users suffer when software breaks the rules
advertisement
